Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotation readOnlyHint=false already signals mutation, and the description adds that settlement occurs at the current price. However, it does not disclose the consequences of resolving the event, such as whether it is irreversible, what state changes occur, or whether any financial settlement is realized. The description carries the transparency burden but provides only minimal behavioral detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single succinct sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the action and includes the key qualifier of current-price settlement, which is appropriately compact for a one-parameter tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Although the single parameter is fully documented, the description is too thin for a mutating action with no output schema. It does not explain what 'resolve' entails, whether the action is reversible, what outcome to expect, or any state changes. An agent would have incomplete context for confidently invoking this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the eventId parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb, 'rozliczenie' (settle), a clear resource, 'zdarzenia' (event), and a qualifying condition, 'po bieżącej cenie' (at current price). This makes the tool's core purpose identifiable, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like cancel_priced_event or update_priced_event.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as track_priced_event, cancel_priced_event, or update_priced_event. No exclusions, prerequisites, or situational context are provided; only the word 'Natychmiastowe' (immediate) hints at timing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.